Liberals are dictator?

The point of this question is he seems to make him right no matter what the result is -If he got downvote, he assumes that what he say is right.  -If he didn't get the downvote, he assumes that what he say is right. I wanna ask what is this type of fallacy?

This can be a self-sealing argument .

You are a very tolerant,  and logical, person, Dr. Bennett.  And you work very hard to clarify things.  Rare qualities amongst forum moderators today, and I greatly appreciate what you do in here.  

Would you mind if I ask more things?

1. I've read examples of self-sealing argument, how are these different from Circular Reasoning?

2. Could Special Pleading fit this as well? Because it seems like he shifted a goalpost to win an argument. (from a downvote to not getting a downvote)

1. Circular requires x leading to y and y leading to x whereas the self-sealing argument doesn't require circularity. Also, a circular argument is more of fallacy of form where a self-dealing argument can be classified as rhetoric or even a bad argument.

2. You can argue that, but I don't think that is a strong argument. Sometimes argument where the conclusion does not follow are best simply left as non sequitur . This way, the error is clear and virtually undisputed. If you try to pin down a specific named fallacy, the argument can shift to the specific fallacy rather than the more blatant fact of the error in the reasoning.

[To Citizen Irrelevant]

I appreciate the compliment. But I am not sure if I can accept the compliment without the full disclosure that I lack tolerance and patience when I am dealing with compartmentalization. I think I will write a post on this rather than explain it here. But thank you :)

https://www.hostingauthors.com/posts/bobennett/compartmentalization-how-otherwise-rational-people-believe-idiotic-things.html

Bo, what is the difference between a self serving argument and an unfalsifiablity fallacy?

I think you mean self-sealing argument ... The answer is found in the exception:

Exception: Holding beliefs that are unfalsifiable is not fallacious, especially when stated as beliefs or opinions. This becomes fallacious when an unfalsifiable claim is presented as evidence in argumentation.

So basically it is context. There is a fine line, no doubt.